This article is important in defining the anti-circumvention and safe harbor parts of the DMCA. It helps provide an understanding to laws that are very complicated in their wording. It also shows legal challenges to the DMCA. The Lexmark case is an example of a hardware company using software to try and monopolize its segment of the industry. Lexmark would profit greatly if its cartridges were the only ones that could be used with its printers. The court, however, stopped Lexmark by ruling that its program was not covered under the DMCA because it left other avenues to accessing its software open. A company tried to use the DMCA as a way to profit in an aftermarket, using copyright law to profit rather than the reasons the law was created, and was stopped by the courts. I will use this article not only as background information for my paper as well as an example of how the courts have to regulate companies so they do not exploit the DMCA and copyright in order to monopolize a market.
This article is a good example of how the DMCA can be manipulated in a very effective manner. The DMCA is a tool that creates a new business model of monopolization, and this article is evidence of that. The court cases show how the courts have not ruled on the DMCA itself, they have only applied it to situations. The paper outlines how to avoid loopholes and make your business plan sound under the DMCA in order to create a monopoly. The DMCA has clearly created a new way of doing and controlling business that is contrary to the original intentions of copyright law.
This article is an example of how the DMCA actively denies consumers rights afforded to them by copyright. The DMCA does not consider the consumer like copyright law does. It looks past them as “mere inconveniences” and favors larger companies and content holders. This shows how the DMCA works more for larger interest and denies the founding principles of progress that are embedded in copyright law. The DMCA has changed the face and nature of copyright and has the potential to go further.
This is the section of the DMCA that many hardware manufacturers are using to create software that is copyright protected and is the only software that the hardware can be used with. This is the law that allows small monopolies on the market to exist until something new is invented or the monopoly is challenged by law. This section of the DMCA allows for copyright protected material to be impermeable to circumvention. This is an important part of the DMCA and is one that draws a lot of attention both in and out of the legal system. It has, in some ways, created a new business model and a new way for companies to enter another market by exploiting the copyright protection and anti-circumvention clauses. It allows companies like The Chamberlain Group to try and block the market and control it by claiming copyright infringement. It also allows hardware companies to enter the software market because they create hardware that can only be used on their copyright protected software platforms. Although a lot of this has not held up in court, when challenged, it has become a popular way of doing business and entering into a new market. This part of the DMCA is the backbone of my paper. I will analyze its words to show how it allows for companies to attempt to monopolize markets and control aftermarkets. I will also suggess that it needs to be ammended because although the courts have limited the attempts of some companies to control their market and aftermarkets, the DMCA is still open to exploitation because the court rulings do not create any legal precedents that go against the DMCA itself.
This case is another example of companies, in this case motion picture studios, using the DMCA to control a market. The case looks at the DMCA and is one that argues about its constitutionality. The court uses precedents like Corley in its ruling in favor of the DMCA, saying the law is constitutional and it is within the powers of Congress. This case is one of the earlier cases regarding DMCA and control, and since it deals directly with the DMCA, it is an example that goes against my thesis. The court, here, clearly decides a case using the DMCA and does not find issues with it as an act. It allows the studios to maintain the control over DVDs that they want. The DMCA is used to help and monopoly.
Microsoft’s “Play for Sure” claims that Windows Media Player’s DRM allows you to choose your music and devices. However, there are still severe restrictions because of DRM. There are very few players that are compatible to play with the WMA DRM format. If you want to use a player that does not support WMA content, you have to repurchase your library of music. Even though Microsoft markets their DRM as user friendly and non-restrictive, it is more to make DRM a norm than the truth of the matter.
RealNetworks markets their services as compatible with any MP3 playing device. This in fact is not true, because music purchased through RealNetworks only plays on devices that support their DRM or the WMA format, thus limiting the players that the songs can be played on and restricting use of their music. RealNetworks, like iTunes, limits the number of times you can burn a song as well as the number of backup copies that can be made. They reserve the right to modify their DRM and what it controls. RealNetworks also does not allow reselling or remixing songs purchased through them.
Napster 2.0 advertises itself as a service that allows you to have all the music you want in anyway that you want it. It offers three services and all charge more for uses that were once free. Napster Unlimited allows you access to all the music you want until you stop paying the monthly fee. You also have to pay if you want to put it on a device, which can only be one that supports WMA. It also costs money to burn it. The DRM restrictions can change, you can only backup a limited amount of times and burning is restricted.
I will use this article as an example of how companies use DRM to exploit the music market place. Each service limits the music they sell so that it can only be used with products that they license. They also limit what a person can do with the music, even things that are traditionally acceptable under copyright law such as making back up copies and the first sale doctrine. This article shows how the DMCA changes traditional copyright laws and allows companies to exploit their customers.
This is suit that Lexmark International, Inc filed against Static Control Components (SCC), Inc. It is the appeal case, where the court overturns the findings against SCC. Lexmark claims that SCC violates the DMCA by selling printer toner cartridges that work with Lexmark’s printer engine program. Lexmark claims that SCC’s chip violates the DMCA and federal copyright law. Part I A of the case provides a description of the companies and the computer programs and how they work. It also explains Lexmark’s toner cartridges and the chips manufactured by SCC. Part I B is a summary of the proceedings and findings of the district court. Section II says that the district court abused its power and outlines four criteria that have to be fulfilled in order to uphold the preliminary injunction. Part III is the beginning of the decision. The first part of the decision outlines the laws that relevant to the case and what each side has to prove in order to win. The court uses the idea-expression dichotomy and other copyright principles to find that one part of the software, the Toner Loading Program, is not copyrightable. The court also states three errors that the district court made in its ruling on the issue of copyright infringement by SCC. The district court was mistaken about what is protectable and what is not when it comes software copyright. Part C of the decision assesses Lexmark’s counter arguments that support the ruling of the district court. Part D comments on the district court’s response to SCC’s fair use arguments, even thought they were irrelevant because the Toner Loading Program is not copyrightable. The court says the district court was right in the four factors SCC had to have for a successful argument and comments on these. Section IV of the decision looks at the DMCA element of the case. Part IV A looks at the laws and what claims the parties make under these laws. Part B says that reading the printer’s memory, not only by the code, can access the Printer Engine Program because it is not encrypted. Since no security device has to be circumvented to get to the code, SCC is not in violation of the DMCA. The rest of this section looks at Lexmark’s case and responds to it. Part C states that the SCC chip does not provide access to the Printer Engine Program, it instead replaces it. Part D addresses the district court’s assessment of SCC’s case because it could become relevant. The court vacates the preliminary injunction and orders further proceedings.
This case is relevant to my paper because it shows how companies attempt to use the DMCA to prevent aftermarket competition. Even though Lexmark fails, the courts ruling has nothing to do with the DMCA and its wording, rather it is about technicalities in a sense. Lexmark lost its case because one of its programs cannot be copyrighted and the other was not encrypted, not because of interpretation of the DMCA. Even though there are court cases regarding the law and its uses, they are not effective in setting precedents or helping with DMCA interpretation.
This article demonstrates how the DMCA creates a new business model through copyright. Copyright does not function as it once did; rather, the new provisions of the DMCA make copyright law an avenue to monopoly. This article proves that the nature of copyright has changed and the things that are no longer allowed under the DMCA give a virtual monopoly to the content owners and manufacturers. This is the beginning of companies turning to copyright to corner or break into a new market. I will use this paper as evidence for how the nature of copyright has changed and it is being used as a means to monopolize a market rather for the good of the people, as it was intended.
This case deals with aftermarkets and monopolies. Universal remote controls for garage doors are often purchased as replacements or backups to the devices included with the garage door on initial purchase. The aftermarket for these devices then becomes a lucrative market for those who provide replacement garage door openers. Skylink makes universal remotes that work with many different brands and models of garage doors. Chamberlain, a major garage door manufacturer sells replacement remotes for its products. However, Skylink cuts into Chamberlain’s aftermarket profits with its universal remotes. The DMCA protects circumvention of any copyrighted work, such as the rolling code in Chamberlain’s claim. However, this case is more than just a copyright infringement case, because it has larger significance in the marketplace. If Chamberlain had been able to win their case and make the model 39 illegal because of DMCA infringement, it would then give them more control of the aftermarket by taking away the competition of universal remotes. This case is an example of how companies are turning to copyright and the DMCA in order to give themselves control of a market. Copyright is being used to help give companies a monopoly in the area of the market that they want to control. I will use this case as an example of a company trying to exploit the DMCA in order to control a market. It shows how copyright law is exploited by a manufacturer and then put into place by the courts. The major point is that the courts do not find anything wrong in the DMCA, just a lack support by the plaintiff. This shows that the DMCA is still open for exploitation, and this trend will continue.
This article, although brief, is interesting because it shows how Apple responded to a threat to its control of an industry. This article was written very soon after RealNetworks announced that it had created a version of Harmony that allowed iPod compatibility. It shows how the immediate response to a threat like this is the DMCA. Apple immediately turns to the laws not because of copyright, but because they want to maintain control of their iPod empire. This shows how the DMCA is used to protect monopolies and prevent widespread compatibility and interoperability. The nature of copyright law changes with the DMCA, which is exploited by technology companies and used as a means of market control and monopolization.